Nobel Prize for ESP paper?

Question

Since once again a question has been aimed at skeptics while all the skeptics have been blocked from replying, I'll repost it here with a few comments. The poster in question refers to an article published in Nature, arguably the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal, on Oct 18, 1974. The paper describes experiments conducted with 'psychic' Uri Geller and apparently claims to have shown that psychic abilities exist. The original poster wants to know why this is still not accepted by science.

What the poster failed to mention is that an editorial preceded the article in Nature, where the editors explained their decision to include the article. Keep in mind that this is 'not done' - rarely is there cause to justify publication; the science should stand on it's own. In this case, it did not. The editorial may be read here (oddly enough, on Uri Gellers own website). http://site.uri-geller.com/investigating_the_paranormal

While many peer-reviewed journals select one anonymous reviewer to read and critique the article, Nature sends it to three. Of the three, one discouraged publication, one was ambivilant, and one encouraged publication. However, not for the normal reasons one might publish a scientific article. Some quotes from the editorial:

"It must be a matter of interest to scientists to note that, contrary to very widespread rumour, the paper does not present any evidence whatsoever for Geller's alleged abilities to bend metal rods by stroking them, influence magnets at a distance, make watches stop or start by some psychokinetic force and so on. The publication of the paper would be justified on the grounds of allowing scientists the opportunity to discriminate between the cautious, limited and still highly debatable experimental data, and extravagant rumour, fed in recent days by inaccurate attempts in some newspapers at precognition of the contents of the paper."

In other words, the paper does NOT conclusively demonstrate that any psychic powers have been shown.

"Two of the referees also felt that the paper should be published because it would allow parapsychologists, and all other scientists interested in researching this arguable field, to gauge the quality of the Stanford research and assess how much it is contributing to parapsychology."

Not to see that they have actually made progress, but to judge whether or not they have.

"Publishing in a scientific journal is not a process of receiving a seal of approval from the establishment; rather it is the serving of notice on the community that there is something worthy of their attention and scrutiny."

In other words, we're not saying they're right.

"All the referees felt that the details given of various safeguards and precautions introduced against the possibility of conscious or unconscious fraud on the part of one or other of the subjects were "uncomfortably vague" (to use one phrase). This in itself might be sufficient to raise doubt that the experiments have demonstrated the existence of a new channel of communication which does not involve the use of the senses."

All of the reviewers thought the experiment was poorly designed and left the door open for cheating.


So, given all this information, does the publication of this article in Nature warrant a Nobel Prize? I don't think so. To me, it looks like Nature published this article as a 'state of the field' for parapsychology to show how far they (haven't) come. They certainly don't endorse it or even think it's necessarily good research. Not to mention this was published more than 34 years ago, and since then not a single paper on parapsychology has again been published in Nature. I'm sure Nature would love to be able to justify their publishing this back in 1974 by showing actual results in the field - but has not had the opportunity.


So what do you guys think? Nobel Prize-worthy?

Answer 1

Eri, what a fantastic job of asking a question! You really underscored the persistent problem of parapsychology and the paranormal evangelists for it -- they don't know how (or are unwilling) to dig into an issue or problem scientifically, because when they do the superficial claims of parapsychology get very flimsy, very fast. You revealed that very well.



The pre-emptive blocking of people who might hold an opposing opinion also underscores the closed-mindedness of the paranormal evangelist(s) and the unwillingness to tolerate critical analysis. Quite unscientific.



So to answer your question, if Nobel prizes came out of Cracker Jack boxes, then it's definitely Nobel Prize-worthy. Otherwise, as you have eloquently and comprehensively described, it's far from being good science.

Answer 2

I did not see the question to which Eri refers, and if skeptics were blocked that is unfortunate. However, a few weeks back I asked a question and _invited_ skeptics to respond, specifically Eri. Yet she was conspicuous in her absence. But I digress: Concerning the present question, I agree, the Nature paper does not deserve a Nobel prize -- it does not meet the necessary criteria, and that not because it is about parapsychology, but because it reports a preliminary study and preliminary studies are never nominated for Nobel prizes.



That answers the question, but I must go on to point out some of the logical and other errors Eri makes in asking it. She states: "the paper does NOT conclusively demonstrate that any psychic powers have been shown." This is false (a logical fallacy). What the paper does state is that no psychokinetic (PK) effects were observed. However, PK is not the only "psychic power." Geller did quite convincingly display so-called "remote viewing" or "clairvoyant" effects while locked in a closed room, inside a Faraday cage. With tight controls to prevent any sort of 'leakage.' (I know, I know -- the "Amazin'" Randi supposedly debunked this -- however, my own research has shown that Randi's own account is riddled with falsehoods and half-truths.) Second, Eri claims that "not a single paper [on parapsychology] has again been published in Nature." Even if that were true, that doesn't necessarily mean the phenomena are non-existent. It could also mean Nature has a bias against parapsychology. However, Eri's assertion is not true. Nature subsequently published at least two other pieces on parapsychology that I have come across (albeit not full-fledged articles), one in 1978 and one in 1980.



As a final note, one should not take the editorial in Nature as definitive of anything, as a close reading of it reveals its anti-parapsychology bias. Far more instructive and valuable is the history of the parapsychology discussion in the equally-prestigious but apparently more scientifically-objective Proceedings of the IEEE, which allowed a spirited debate from both sides of the issue to continue through several issues of the publication.



Edit: OK, Eri, you're forgiven, LOL. Skepdoc -- I have learned that one can get in trouble for chatting too much, so I'll have to wait to respond to your SRI comment (maybe I can figure out a question to ask about it)!

Answer 3

Awesome post Eri. It takes a very closed minded person to block all objective answerers, then post troll like questions.



I often claim that there would be a Nobel Prize on offer to a scientist who could confirm PSI etc without question (ie: repeatable experiments etc).



Unfortunatley this poster puts forward pseudoscience and poor quality studies and labels it science. These studies have all been thoroughly criticized by science over and over again.



I agree with you 100%.



Edit:

Rviewer003 - are you seriously claiming that Uri Geller has psychic powers? Anyone can repeat his 4 lame tricks. The guy has been busted on stage with a cheap phoney magnet thumb!

Answer 4

Putting out half truths and distortions are this blockers forte.You've asked a good question.I wonder how many of those who follow and admire the blocker will read it.Parapsychology while not legitimate was being studied in Universities and Colleges in 1974.I can see why Nature did the article.With what we know of Geller and his like.I wonder if they'd print that article today.

Of course the answer is no,they do not deserve a Nobel.These studies deserve a booby prize not a Nobel.One scary thought,Yassar Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize.

Answer 5

I missed the question too, but you appear to have both asked and answered in a definitive way.

It is unfortunate that skeptics are being blocked on this board again. These things seem to go in waves, there is an outbreak of blocking and false reporting of skeptics on my usual hangout, Alternative Medicine in recent weeks as well.



I'm surprised anybody takes the SRI stuff seriously anymore. It has been written about and seriously debunked in the skeptical literature many times over the last 30 years or so. If reviving that sad article from the era of hot pants and wide leg jeans (ya, I was there) is the best they can do, I think we've finally won the debate. Let's move on.

Answer 6

Of course Uri Geller is nor deserving of a Nobel Prize and will never even be considered for one. The only reason Nature printed the article is to show the nuttiness of parapsychology not because they are accrediting it as a science.



James Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation is one of the leading skeptics in the world and has made Uri Geller look foolish on so many occasions. In fact to this day, James Randi keeps $1 Million in an escrow fund for ANYONE who can prove their psychic abilities, wacky claims of medical cures, proof of god, whatever. This million dollars has been sitting there for many many years just waiting for someone to come grab it. Prove your psychic ability and the money is yours, simple as that.



I will post links for James Randi's million dollar challenge as well as a video of Randi exposing Geller on The Tonight Show.



http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html



http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3396869920557391806

Answer 7

Thank you for this follow up research. Very interesting indeed. I think you should get the Nobel Prize for asking this question, but sadly enough, I don't give them out.

Answer 8

Thanks for posting this eri.



Is doesn't look like they're going to win the Nobel Prize, but did they win the 1974 Bendy Wooden Spoon?